People who are going to insist Linux behaves largely the same way as Windows are going to have the most trouble. That includes the terminology of both.

Now, that said, I don't think you're in that category, but I do see you have a genuine problem. I can't see font-management and all that goes along with it on Linux approaching the way Windows works. Part of that is the multi-user, network-oriented approach to it all that Windows simply does not do well, but part of that is it is simply The Linux/Unix Way to expose a lot of the underlying modules. So, X11 has a font server, Gnome and KDE have font-smoothing modules, and GhostScript also has it's own font renderer are going to remain public knowledge for quite a while. I don't think all that many people will have problems with knowing this.

Of course, they shouldn't need to know quite all of this. At the very most, none of this need be visible unless they want to add a font. Then a font-installer should handle the rest of it. All other detailed knowledge should be optional. That means that if you don't need or want to know that Gnome uses a particularly library by a particular name to enable font-smoothing, then yes, those that are comfortable with module names need to get more in the habit of saying "Yes, Gnome can do anti-aliasing. If you're curious, the module is called gdkxft" or something like that.

Wade.